This blog sucks ass. It is a cacophony of self indulgent, meaningless thoughts and has, for the last year, been a means for me to just talk about myself.
My own arrogance disgusts me. From now on, this blog will exclusively contain articles written to help improve your life in some way. Either via guide or demonstrative example. Yes I will still talk about myself, all bloggers are narcissists after all, but only in order to demonstrate a wider point.
I won’t lie, I’m not gonna be updating frequently. My band, education, social life and job all take precedence. But fuck it. I was on the verge of deleting it entirely. I had rationalised to myself that I had nothing left to add. In reality I was angry at myself because a girl LMR rejected me after reading my blog, then had the cheek to fall asleep next to me rather than getting the fuck out of my house.
I do however concede that this merely demonstrates the importance of having the highest possible personal value, to overcome mishaps like this. I bear no resentment to the girl in question.
This leads me to this posts title.
The mission of this blog is to teach young men how to get the most out of the world, by taking control of their own destinies and increasing their value as a person.
If you’re wondering, yes this means some people are worth more than others, but your personal worth changes according to how you use the tools god gave you: mind, body and willpower.
Those three things are all we really have, and are the only three things in life worth cultivating and taking seriously.
Everything else is just gravy.
I don’t do fenced relationships, and am therefore not capable of cheating or being cheated on. I do however believe that cheating within the framework a fenced relationship is wrong. That said, the only wrong part is the dishonesty; the actual act of having sex with someone else is not morally wrong in and of itself – because humans are not each other’s sexual property.
Whatever, if you know me or read this blog much then you’ll be familiar with my slightly abnormal sense of right and wrong – this is not a philosophical post.
This is a post about how people who get cheated on are, by and large, idiots when it comes to reacting to and dealing with infidelity.
First lets examine the typical reactions of men and women.
She’s a cum guzzling slut for cheating on me, she is clearly psychologically deficient. He is evil for stealing my girl from me.
What does she have that I don’t? I can’t believe he chose her over me. She is a filthy slut for stealing him from me.
Bad vibes all round.
Anger and sadness aside, these typical reactions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of infidelity, its likelihood and its causes (which differ massively based on gender).
Why do people cheat?
Men are naturally polygamous, women are naturally hypergamous (people who claim to be naturally monogamous should consider the difference between “moral”, “natural” and “normal”). This means that when a man cheats he is fundamentally seeking a new experience.
Men cheat when they have a high enough desire for a new partner*. The desire can be increased by sudden increase in the number of sexual options available, and/or by the woman becoming unattractive or withholding sex.
Yes, women who “punish” their boyfriends by withholding sex are practically asking to be cheated on.
The crucial point, though, is that unless the woman is completely not worth being with, the man will stay with her while his affair continues on the side. This is where the idea of a mistress or concubine originates from.
In contrast, women cheat when they find a better partner than their current one*. Their desire to cheat derives from an increase in the quality of their sexual options, and is further boosted by the man DLVing over the long term.
A woman having an affair is ready to leave her partner. While women and men both can love one (or more) person(s) while sleeping with many – a woman who specifically cheats on her partner, ie commits and act of grave dishonesty and violates the implied sexual ownership of a fenced relationship, no longer loves her partner and is ready to move on.
When men are caught they end the affair – when women are caught they end the relationship.
This difference is the root of people’s dumb reactions to cheating.
As with many things of a sexual nature, people love to project their own thoughts and feelings on to other people.
So how do we solve this? Unfortunately there is no system for it, just the cold hard truth.
If you get cheated on, it means you weren’t good enough. A better man came along, or at least a man who offered something you couldn’t. If you catch her, your relationship is over.
If you get cheated on, it means that you alone cannot fulfil the man’s sexual appetite. This isn’t just frequency of sex, different women are different in bed. Your likelihood of getting cheated on depends on your bedroom skills vs the mans desire for variety. If you catch him your relationship can continue, if you forgive him.
Men & Women
Cheating is a consequence of people’s natural sexual urges, and despite all that I’ve just said – circumstances change. A woman may think a man has higher value than her husband until she sleeps with him, then realising that she should have stuck with her first choice. Similarly a man can overestimate his own desire for variety and realise that his wife was more than enough. Either way, people make mistakes.
Over 30 years of marriage, the likelihood of infidelity by at least one partner tends towards 90%, also people who have cheated on one or more partners are more likely to cheat in general.
Some would say that information like this demonstrates that people need to learn to forgive and forget. Personally I think it shows that the way the majority of people conduct their love lives is flawed, but rather than try a different approach the majority just keep flogging a dead horse in the vain hope that “maturity” will iron out the sexual urges ingrained by millions of years of evolution.
People sometimes call me weird for not minding that my partners have sex with other people (although not all of them do – more evidence for hypergamy vs polygamy theory). The irony is that many of these people have probably been cheated on numerous times without even realising it.
* providing there is mutual interest, good logistics and a low – medium chance of getting caught.
Our culture has lied to you about what constitutes a strong independent woman. Real feminine strength is what our grandmothers had while their husbands were fighting for their country. How many “strong independent women” could handle an emotional burden like that? My guess is very few. I want strong, independent women in my life, but when I say strong and independent I mean:
I want a woman strong enough to resist relationship duress enough to facilitate an unfenced relationship.
I want a woman independent enough to not require the input of her friends for every major decision.
I want a woman strong enough to get her validation from within, not her job, her social status or wealth.
I want a woman independent enough to not narcissistically worry “what she’s done wrong” in the event that I don’t want to hang out.
I want a woman strong enough to lower her bitch shield and be honest, open and vulnerable. Someone brave enough to bring the walls down.
I want a woman independent enough to have actual, constructive hobbies. Shopping does not count as a hobby.
I want a woman strong enough to always make the effort to look feminine and sexy, even if she isn’t feeling up to it.
I want a woman independent enough to not require constant external validation from facebook, texting and other social media.
I want a woman strong enough to put up with sexist humour, emotional roller coasters and rough sex (that’s how most of my relationships with women are).
This is not the same as the “Strong Independent Woman(tm)” promoted to us by Sex in the City, Cosmo and various other manifestations of societal decay. Being a catty, neurotic, shallow bitch who acts like a man but with a vagina is not strength, it’s cowardice. Taking shelter in a fortress of asocial and unnatural behaviour is a defence mechanism for people without the strength to present themselves as they truly are. Climbing the corporate ladder doesn’t take strength, it takes manipulation, ass kissing and sociopathy. Having an emotionless, sex only love life is nothing but a sign of a lack of willingness/ability to connect with the opposite sex. Overcoming this takes strength, as does letting go of any jealousy about your partners other lovers.
Of course you’ll never read this in Cosmo, because to them strength is neurotic, self absorbed validation seeking. The result is a lot of lonely, deluded women and a lot of sexually frustrated men. It’s lose – lose.
This one is a lot easier than forgiveness in terms of what to say, but much harder in terms of when to say it. The magic words: “I’m sorry”.
So how do you avoid the classic trap of over apologising. How do you differentiate between holding your head up like a man and admitting you’re wrong, and merely apologising for your own existence like a sackless shrew. It can be hard at times, luckily there is an easy way to deal with this.
If the tables were turned, would you expect an apology? If so, apologise. If not, don’t.
This sounds deceivingly simple, but once you start doing it you’ll notice two things.
Suddenly, the relative rarity of your apologies will give them value. This means that an apology has a much greater problem solving capacity. It’s similar to complements. Over complementary people suck the value out of their own compliments.
The only problem comes from bitches (over-masculine women and over-feminine men). Female bitches will not like that you don’t defer to them and place them on the pedestal that other men (also bitches) place them on. Male bitches will not like that you are “disrespectful” or “rude”. This is because male bitches value other people’s feelings and perceptions of them over their own integrity – and find it uncomfortable when other men don’t do the same.
Thankfully, bitches aren’t worth your time. Apologising like an alpha filters the bitches out of your life, leaving room for the men and women worth being around (ie those with self respect and those without an entitlement complex, respectively).
Someone has wronged you in some way. Either you’re learning game and therefore want to appear non reactive, or you have internalised your positive beliefs and therefore aren’t really that bothered. But at the same time, you don’t want to appear like someone who can be walked over. Doormats tend to be the most forgiving people.
We all know that guy who constantly says “it’s ok” when people take advantage of him. We pity that guy, we don’t want to be that guy. We do, however, want to retain control of our emotions.
So what do you do when someone wrongs you?
Firstly, you need to know whether you are genuinely bothered by what they’ve done. This evaluation should not be based on your relationship to the perpetrator or on you mood at the time. It should be based on clearly defined personal boundaries. Some people know their boundaries, others have to figure them out. If you’re in the latter group try writing down a list of the worst things you’d let someone get away with without wanting to exact vengeance. This should give you a good starting point.
People with weak personal boundaries tend to put up with too much bullshit, then snap at someone unfairly for a very minor offense. If you do this, you’re a childish arsehole. Grow some fucking nuts.
Once you’ve established whether or not you’re bothered, the next choice is what action to take. Blowing up at people is a sign of weakness and emotional instability. If you are bothered by what they’ve done, calmly explain why you have a problem with them. Allow them to try and explain themselves then evaluate whether they are worthy of forgiveness. If they aren’t, say “I don’t tolerate this kind of bullshit from people” and walk away. If they are worthy of forgiveness then forgive them the right way.
If you weren’t bothered in the first place, skip straight to the forgiving.
When forgiving someone, the emphasis should be on the fact that you aren’t obliged to forgive them, so they should think themselves lucky. A bad thing to say is “it’s okay” or “that’s fine”, because they both translate to “I am ok with this behaviour in general“. A better alternative is “don’t worry about it” or “no worries”. For a start, the language is stronger and more dominant (no and don’t vs okay and fine). Also, more subtly, they assume that the perp is worried about wronging you, as they should be, but that this time you’ll let it slide. This is the crucial difference, the first two phrases telegraph that you tolerate bad behaviour generally, the latter two telegraph that you don’t, but in all your magnanimity are willing to let it go just this once.
The only question this leaves is whether someone deserves forgiveness. As a rule of thumb, if they’ve been deliberately mean, and/or show no remorse, they probably don’t. On the other hand, accidental harm or deliberate malicious behaviour that is genuinely regretted is normally forgivable.
This method gives a 3rd option in the traditional “be angry or be a pussy” choice. It comes in especially handy if some dude bumps into you in a club.
People have needs.
This image is an oft-cited example of those needs, and their hierarchy. (Google Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for more info)
Essentially, it’s like a video game. In order to advance to the next level, you need to complete all the tasks in the level before. For example, someone who is dying of thirst won’t give a shit about being sexually intimate.
The problem with beta provider game is that you aim to account for needs that most modern women can account for by themselves.
You’re average girl at uni or with a job has probably got breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, homeostasis and using the toilet down. And if she wants she can get sex (as in getting her hole filled, not good sex) pretty much at any time.
Safety is where the beta comes in. Ignoring security of morality, health and family, as they tend to be more personal, a beta will try to provide resources and property. Even though the modern woman can sort that shit out easily. Probably more easily than a young man.
The beta’s woes don’t end there though. The far greater problem with this approach is that he’s trying to satisfy a physiological need (sex) by providing safety. How can someone stuck on level 1 help someone else complete level 2?
Compare this to an alpha. The alpha has at least the first 4 levels covered. This means that anything he does give a woman is a treat. His higher level allows him to help people on levels up to his. A guy who can get laid easily (level 1) is in a far better position to provide a woman with friendship and sexual intimacy (level 3) than a guy who can’t get laid at all.
What’s the lesson of this drawn out video game analogy? Simple:
There is nothing wrong with providing for a woman, as long as you’ve got your shit handled first.
P.S. When trying to build a good lifestyle, working upwards through that chart is a useful way to check you have all your bases covered.
Standard issue conventional dating wisdom that is pretty much useless to the common man. The thing is, despite the fact that it’s useless, it’s still right. It’s also gravely misunderstood.
The misunderstood part is “be yourself”. Thanks to (among other things) egalitarianism, the self esteem movement and the tendency of our culture to preserve people’s comfort and feelings over their actual achievements, “be yourself” translates to “be like everyone else”. Be boring, be consumerist, be one dimensional.
The other night I had a chat with a computer science student who was taking a girl out on a date. I reeled off the standard stuff about not paying for drinks in order to please her and being worth sleeping with. The girls of the group did not agree with my advice (surprise) and neither did my friend. So I rephrased thusly:
“Advice on specific techniques isn’t useful unless you put a lot of time in, the best short term advice is that getting laid is about who you are, not what you do.
“But who you are isn’t about the layers of social conditioning that have built up over the years. I mean ‘who you are’ when you strip back those layers to reach your core essence.”
This kicked off a bit. On team Dulst you have what I just said, on team SWPL you have the notion that who you are is defined by social conditioning. Also that current humans are more highly evolved than hunter gatherer homo sapiens (if that were true where does that leave modern hunter gatherer societies?).
Standard SWPLesque implied shaming language ensued.
“So you’re saying that if you want to fuck your sister or an animal, that should be ok because it’s only social conditioning stopping you?”
No, fucking your close relatives is evolutionary suicide, that’s why you don’t do it.
Then gays were used as an example. I casually mentioned that homosexuality, while perfectly acceptable (I live in Brighton for god’s sake), is unnatural.
Several offended sensibilities later and the subject changed.
There is a game related lesson from this though – team SWPL confused who you are with what you do.
Social conditioning is a good thing a lot of the time. It stops us DOING stupid shit. But it should never change who you are.
You are not your fucking khakis – Tyler Durden
You are not the years of social conditioning. You are not hollywood love advice. You are not fem-centric. You are a fucking man. A caveman. In a suit.
And as you strip away all the bullshit, and stop accepting conventional thought without a good reason, being yourself comes to mean being fucking awesome.
When you reach that point, everything you do becomes effortless.
Be yourself and have fun. Just make sure that you have a clear idea of what “yourself” is, and that “yourself” also happens to be one cool mother fucker.
Homo Sapiens have been around for 200000 years. For 190000 of those years we were hunter gatherers, for the most recent 10000 we were “civilised” farmers. You know, with war and stuff.
I’m not gonna get into deep science here, I’m a (bad) physicist – not an evolutionary biologist, but 10k years is a not sufficient time to evolve out of are pre-agricultural brain and body.
This leads to a fairly simple conclusion:
We have the brains and bodies of hunter gatherers. Therefore what is good for a hunter gatherer, mentally and physically, is good for us. And good for you.
Don’t get me wrong, with game, eating, lifestyle etc you should do your own research and make considered choices. But you should always consider the following – would this suit a hunter gatherer?
Or the cooler sounding version:
Would this suit a caveman?
Would worrying about how many facebook friends you have suit a caveman? Would bitching about your coworkers (co-hunters) suit a caveman? Would a caveman worry about trivial political “choice” between identical parties?
No. The caveman is concerned with food, shelter, fucking, meaningful friendships and relaxing.
You are a caveman in fancy clothes, and thus your concerns should match his.
When I make decisions about virtually anything, this question is at the back of my mind.
Without being a massive pussy.
If you’ve been sleeping with a girl for a while you can end up over amping the asshole end of your game. Sometimes you may get asked for genuine advice or comfort. The problem is these requests look like shit tests. For example:
“Have I done something wrong?”
This could be a standard shit test, to which you could either sarcastically agree and amplify, evade and reframe, or if it’s by text just ignore. But there is also the chance that your lady friend just wants some genuine comfort.
The problem is that it’s very easy to slip into supplication and ego stroking, which lowers your value. You need to think of a response that adds value for the other person whilst simultaneously maintaining your high value.
“Nah, you’re fine for now.”
This adds value (consolation) whilst maintaining yours (by appearing discerning). This can also be used as a standard neg, the importance is in the delivery. Said with a smirk, the above line is a neg. Said with a warm smile, it’s comfort.
This leads to part 1 of being nice: alpha reassurance = light negs with warm smiles.
At this juncture I’ll point out that this isn’t actually what goes through my head in these situations, it’s become internalised as a part of my personality. The important thing is to break any habit of supplication you may have, this thought process is a tool to do that. If after 6 months you still think this shit through step by step – you might be a sociopath. More likely autistic.
So that’s reassurance covered, how does one give advice without being a pussy?
The problem here is that even if you aren’t a pussy you can still piss people off by giving advice the wrong way. This method should prevent that.
Step 1: Let them vent.
A lot of the time when people ask for advice they really just want to get things off their chest. They’re not actually interested in your advice, they just want someone to share the mental and physical load of their problems. It’s not their fault, they don’t realise they don’t want your advice – fucked up right? Women tend to be worse for this than men.
Step 2: Non evaluative listening.
Now you’ve been presented with whatever problem your friend/partner/coworker faces, you need to explore it to find possible solutions. Ask them to delve deeper into specific issues, and sit back as they vent some more. CH has an excellent post on this skill, so read that shit. The point is to listen, without judging the content of what the other person says. You are simply trying to get as much information out as possible. Once people verbalise information, they begin forming links and coming to their own conclusions. You can end up with them solving their problems and thanking you for the advice without you ever actually instructing them to do something specific.
Step 3: Only give direct, specific advice if asked.
Unsolicited advice is annoying. Sometimes people want to tell you all about their problems without hearing your opinion at all, other times people ask you for specific guidance because they see you as wise or knowledgeable about a specific subject. In the latter case, go ahead and speak your mind. If they react well keep going, if not do some more non evaluative listening then try again. If they still don’t react well skip to step 4.
Step 4: Identify underlying problems.
If they didn’t ask for specific advice you should skip step 3 and go here. The aim of being nice without being a pussy/annoying is to on one hand not be a supplicator, and on the other hand not impose your beliefs on someone.
Let’s say your friend got dumped. Saying “quit being a bitch and adopt an attitude of abundance, you fucking pussy” isn’t gonna be as effective as “I know it hurts mate, but there’s like 3 billion women in the world, why get hung up on just one?”
The key difference here, apart from tone, is the use of a question. Consider less extreme examples:
“Don’t get hung up on one girl, there are 3 billion girls in the world.” vs “There are 3 billion girls in the world, why get hung up on just one?”
“I think your problem is fear of rejection.” vs “Do you think fear of rejection is involved?”
By phrasing whatever point you’re trying to make as a question, it forces the other person to analyse your point (so that they can answer your question) rather than ignore it. It also means that they won’t think you’re disparaging their character (people are so sensitive these days).
Step 5: Let them draw their own conclusions.
People remember the advice that they come to by forming logical links. If you lead someone to a conclusion, they’ll always remember it better than if you just flat out tell them what to do, because they remember the mental journey to their conclusion and the emotions associated with that journey.
Step 6: If they don’t want to hear it, back off.
There’s no point trying to “fix” someone. There’s a certain type of girl that does this, and they also love giving unsolicited advice. Those girls are annoying, and are often projecting their own imperfections onto their hapless boyfriends.
If the person you’re trying to advise starts dismissing or strongly opposing what you say, end the conversation. Neither of you are getting value from it and unless you are in a pro debate, there’s no point. You can fall into what I call the “Theists vs Atheists trap”. This is where both sides are convinced that the other side is deliberately trying to subvert them or disagree with them.Leading to no progress being made. The important thing is to not be a bitch about it. Saying “fine, suit yourself” suggests that you are a passive agressive faggot, and shows that you need to preserve your ego. People like that shouldn’t be giving advice in the first place. Just be courteous and change the subject.
The classic example of someone who doesn’t want to hear it is the friend who “doesn’t believe” in game. You point out that it gets you laid. They in return start making excuses either about how it only works for certain kinds of people or that it’s manipulative and evil (by that logic I asume they believe that make-up, hair extensions and high heels are also evil). This person does not yet want to be helped, and the more you try to help them the more they resist. Ultimately you can only advise a person that wants advice, so with these people only take it up to step two. Eventually, if you’re not chatting shit, they’ll allow you to go further and you can end up really helping people. I did this recently with a female friend who was verging on depression (see, it’s not always game relate, promise).
The next time someone asks you for advice, try this shit out and see how it goes.
Everyone who reads this blog should be familiar with this post.
The idea of value, and its 3 components, is central to understanding why some guys pull every time they’re out, or why some guys can sleep with multiple girls regularly without them minding, while other equally attractive and personable guys are effectively celibate. The higher your value, the better people will treat you and the more they’ll let you get away with. People won’t necessarily like you for it, but high value will never make them like you less.
Having covered what value is, the next step is implementing it.
Short answer: Always add value to an interaction, and seek interactions in which the other person adds value as well.
Long answer: This advice applies to a wide range of things. Sex, relationships, business, friendships, negotiation, job interviews, and any other situation where two or more people interact seeking mutual benefit (ie what JJ Roberts defines as a relationship). This advice applies equally the straight, gay, male, female and hermaphrodite readers (but remember that my definition of value refers specifically to straight men). A good interaction is one in which all parties add value, without giving up their autonomy.
I’ll break that down for you. Part 1: all parties add value. You are “adding value” if the other person is glad the interaction took place. You may have given them good advice, caused a tingly ‘gina, cut them a good deal or fucked them senseless. As long as they’re glad it happened, you added value. Generally if someone comes back for more (conversation, second job interview, sex) then you added value.
The important part is that all parties add value, not just you. If you, as a high value male, fuck a girl who you aren’t attracted to (guilty) then you are adding value without her adding value. This is a bad interaction for you because you’re being mugged off. Interactions in which you don’t add value are the same, because the realisation that you’re taking advantage of someone will bring you down. There is a common misconception that players take advantage of women – this is not the case providing he adds value to her life.
Part 2: without giving up their autonomy. This means that you are interacting with people because you want to, not because you have to. I recently got a job at a supermarket because I want money, they hired me because they wanted me. Obligation is a pain in the arse, and saps value from your life. I would never sleep with someone out of obligation, and I wouldn’t want a woman to sleep with me out of it either.
I appreciate that this post is very abstract, so here’s an example.
Boy meets girl, the boy approaches girl and runs tight game, the girl is attractive and pleasant. Both parties are adding value, and are acting autonomously (because either is free to walk away). They fuck (adding value via good sex, autonomy via choosing to sleep together). Pretty simple right?
The only remaining question is whether there exists a clash between sexual aggression (primal/emotional value) and autonomy. There doesn’t, because sexual aggression should always be in a context where the girl is free to go. Erotic asphyxiation is one thing, knocking someone out and fucking their unconscious body is a different, morally reprehensible, kettle of fish.
If you make judgements about who to associate with based on value and become a high value person, you will get infinite happiness forever and level up every tuesday.